Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mudas @ Mumtaz Hajrat Ali Sayyad, was convicted by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for the murder of Bablu Sagir Ahmed Rain under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the deceased had a love affair with the appellant and used to sleep at her house. On 29 June 2006, after consuming liquor and dinner, the appellant desired sexual intercourse, but the deceased pleaded inability due to drunkenness. The appellant quarreled, poured kerosene on him, and set him ablaze. The deceased suffered 57% burns and died on 15 July 2006 due to septicemia. The dying declaration (Exhibit-20) recorded by PSI Satish Jadhav implicated the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the dying declaration and other evidence. The appellant appealed, challenging the conviction. The High Court examined the dying declaration and found it unreliable because it was recorded without a doctor's certification of fitness, and there were inconsistencies with the testimony of witnesses who extinguished the fire. The court also noted that the appellant had injuries on her person, suggesting a scuffle, and that the act was not premeditated. The court held that the offence did not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC but fell under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as the appellant had knowledge that her act was likely to cause death but no intention to cause death. The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing her to the period already undergone (about 10 years) and reducing the fine.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by a police officer without certification by a doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind, and there were inconsistencies with other evidence, hence held unreliable (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 Part I IPC - Intention - The appellant poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire after a quarrel over refusal of sexual intercourse, but there was no premeditation or intention to cause death, only knowledge that such act was likely to cause death, hence offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC (Paras 16-20). C) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - Admissibility - A dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but in this case, the declaration was recorded without proper certification and was contradicted by other evidence, hence not reliable (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder is sustainable based on the dying declaration and other evidence, and whether the act amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone (about 10 years). Fine of Rs.5,000/- maintained, in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 304 Part I IPC
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Dying declaration
- Credibility of witnesses
- Circumstantial evidence
- Intention to cause death
- Knowledge of likely death
